Grinols et al v. Electoral College et al

Filing 118

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 97). (Deutsch, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES GRINOLS, et. al.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD

v.

ORDER

ELECTORAL COLLEGE, et. al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On March 13, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application to correct their

18

Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 69 and 94.) Two days later, the Court denied

19

Plaintiffs’ request. (ECF No. 96.) On March 18, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion

20

for Reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its decision denying Plaintiffs’ request

21

to submit more than the 20-page limit imposed by the Court. (ECF No. 97.)
Both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 601 and Eastern District Local Rule 230

22
23

(“Rule 230”) govern Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); E.D.

24

Cal. Local R. 230(j).

25

///

26

///

27
1

28

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise noted.

1

1

Rule 60(b) empowers the Court to relieve a party from an order for the following

2

reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

3

evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party (4) the

4

judgment is void; (5) judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; and (6) any

5

other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Local Rule 230(j) states:

6

Whenever any motion has been granted or denied…and a
subsequent motion for reconsideration is made upon the
same or any alleged different set of facts, counsel shall
present to the Judge. . . to whom such subsequent motion is
made an affidavit or brief . . . setting forth the material facts
and circumstances . . . including:

7
8
9
10

(1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge the prior
motion was made;

11

(2) what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon;

12

(3) what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed
to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such
prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion;
and

13
14

(4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the
time of the prior motion.

15
16
17

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration did not set forth “what new or

18

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

19

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” (ECF

20

No. 97.) Plaintiffs argue that “there is no such order limiting the page numbers, neither

21

in ECF 6, nor anywhere else in the docket.” (Id.) Plaintiffs are wrong. Paragraph 8 of

22

the Order Requesting Joint Status Report limits any briefs or papers to 20 pages and

23

requires any party wishing to file lengthier documents to seek relief from the Court.

24

(ECF No. 6.)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

Because Plaintiffs have failed to describe a material new fact that warrants the Court’s

2

reconsideration, Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (ECF No.

3

97.)

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 4, 2013

6
7
8

_______________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3